Site Meter

I've never seen the Democrats more thoroughly panicked than after yesterday's announcement that Gov. Sarah Palin is John McCain's choice for Vice President. It was like they suddenly realized that they might actually have to work at winning the election this fall. For a group who expected an easy cakewalk into the White House, such a realization has got to be causing a lot of indigestion.

And you know what must be really driving the far left nuts? Sarah Palin is the closest thing to a real person
-- someone who might actually be your neighbor or a friend from the PTA
or someone you work with or a fellow congregant at your church -- than anyone who has graced a
Presidential ticket in some time, at least in my lifetime.

Star high school athlete and beauty pageant contestant? Check.
Married high school sweetheart? Check.Adorable family? Check and double check.Immediate family in the military? Check. (Buh-bye "chicken hawk" argument ...)
PTA member? Check.Loves hunting and fishing and belongs to the NRA? Check.Loves moose burgers and snowmobiling? Check.Married to a blue collar union member? Check. (Wow, a real live union family. The liberal elitist crowd must have really pissed their pants over that one.)Someone
who regularly attends church, and who could probably espouse a simple, direct explanation of her faith that most Americans could also understand and
identify with? Check.Became involved in politics after tiring of local bureaucratic fumbling and corruption? Check.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Of course the slime has already begun to ooze from the fever swamps of the left -- the first crude MILF/naughty librarian/Vixen jokes; rumors that Palin actually adopted her youngest child, who is really the product of an unwanted pregnancy from her oldest daughter; accusations that Palin is just pandering to the "Right To Life nutbags" by deliberately carrying her defective pregnancy to term instead of doing what any sensible, intelligent woman would do; questions about her fitness as a mother, since she is obviously abandoning her poor, mentally retarded baby in order to join the McCain campaign; speculation that because Palin entered the Miss Alaska pageant, there must be compromising or embarassing photos of her somewhere. And liberal women? They'll be a perpetual fountain of rudeness, vulgarity, and cattiness. (PS - If those swimsuit photos ever do become available, you can rest assured that I'll post them ASAP. Hubba-hubba!)

But you can't use that kind of unhinged lunacy in a national campaign. So Obama is left with the standard complaints -- "She's inexperienced/She's not qualified/She didn't earn this" and
so forth. This will be the thrust of the national message against Palin, but it will be like walking on broken glass for Obama given his nonexistent list of real accomplishments as a leader.

So what's wrong with Sarah Palin? In order to really understand this, we must ask "What is right about Barack Obama?" And here's the answer: he was raised by a free-spirited agnostic mom, he went to Harvard, he
studied community organizing, he studied civil rights law, he read John
Dewey and Saul Alinsky and James Cone and Ghandi, his leadership skills were mentored by
some of the left's leading radicals and he became a star pupil, his potential as a leader was
recognized and he was
given "guardian angels" by the Democratic party and fast-tracked
through the Chicago and Illinois political machines. In other words, he was hand-picked and groomed
by the liberal establishment to be President. This is not a flattering
metaphor but it is an accurate one: Obama is the top stud from the
progressive leadership stud farm, and all his adult life he has been
bred to sire the new Democratic Socialist States of America.

Compare that pedigree to Sarah Palin's: Who has mentored her? Has she studied
Alinsky? Cone? Gustavo Gutierrez? Pauol Freire? Chomsky? Cornel West?
No Ivy Leage degree? No community organizing skills? No experience in
civil rights advocacy? Her "accomplishments" as mayor and Energy
Commission chairwoman and governor mean nothing next to the void
of her poorly trained and sadly underdeveloped intellect.

But again, average people would find those arguments completely non-compelling, if not outright silly. So we're back to "She's not ready/She's not qualified" etc.

The next two months are going to be a lot of fun. I'm heading out to buy the popcorn right now.

Ed Morrisey points out this interesting contrast between rookie Palin and rookie Obama:

Palin spent her entire political career crusading against the political
machine that rules Alaska — which exists in her own Republican party.
She blew the whistle on the state GOP chair, who had abused his power
on the same commission to conduct party business. Obama, in contrast,
talked a great deal about reform in Chicago but never challenged the
party machine, preferring to take an easy ride as a protegé of Richard
Daley instead.

So, the Democrats put the rookie in the big chair and the veteran in the number two spot; Republicans put the veteran in the big chair and the rookie in the number two spot. Curious.

Another thing I find interesting is that Palin has been a favored pick of conservative bloggers for a long time. Bloggers were never really happy about Romney, and they threatened mutiny if McCain nominated Joe Lieberman. Apparently McCain spent a lot of time listening to conservative bloggers and the grass roots of his party. A lot of bloggers are just as smart as the paid political consultants who advise McCain and Obama. I'm glad to see that McCain recognizes this as well.

Not many surprises, really. America is in trouble. Americans are in financial peril. We've failed to defeat al-Qaeda. Republicans have left everyone "on their own." (Nice steal from HRC, by the way ... and say, when did our trillion-dollar-plus social safety net suddenly disappear? I must have missed that one.) And of course, everything is George W. Bush's fault. But in Barack America, things will be different.

Here is what Barack Obama promised to accomplish as president, if he is elected; with commentary, of course.

I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas,
and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right
here in America.

Vague. What kind of tax breaks? I remember learning four years ago that the H. J. Heinz company (provider of the wealth that Tereza Heinz and John Kerry enjoy) had 57 of its 79 manufacturing facilities located overseas; this revelation came at a very inconvenient moment, when John Kerry was also pushing the stale Democrat theme of punishing companies who profit from sending jobs overseas. A web page sympathetic to the Heinz-Kerrys says the following: " ... sixty percent of the sales of the
company are overseas and that the foreign plants allow them to serve
local customers with fresher ingredients. In other words, their foreign operations are for the purpose of
doing business on foreign land, which is not the same, for example,
as an American factory firing its workers and having the same work
done in another country by cheaper labor." Exactly. So, how will the Obama Administration distinguish companies that "ship jobs overseas" as opposed to companies that do business overseas and therefore need overseas operations. And what about businesses HQ'd in foreign countries that employ hundreds or thousands of Americans?

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the
start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I guess that means that if you are a "large business" you are SOL. I also wonder what kind of crystal ball Obama will be using to divine which companies "will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow?" Tech start-ups during the late 90's paid their employees obscenely high wages ($85k for an entry-level network tech, etc.) and they did this because they were flush with venture capital. Yet they eventually pissed away billions, with most of them never showing a profit. I hope that Obama has a better set of criteria for judging start-ups than the Clinton administration.

I will cut taxes for 95% of all working families. Because
in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on
the middle-class.

The last thing we should do now is raise taxes on anyone, period. And Obama doesn't mention his proposed capital gains tax hike, a tax that will be paid by anyone who sells property or securities that have increased in value since they were purchased, regardless of how much other income they earn. Over half of Americans now own investment portfolios including stocks and bonds. Far more than that own real property. A capital gains tax hike will affect all those people, not just some elusive "top 5%" of households.

I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating
programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better
and cost less -- because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges
with a twentieth century bureaucracy.

I'll believe that when I see it. Any government program that pays or subsidizes the salaries of workers belonging to the American Federal Government Employees union or the AFSCME "works." Trust me on this.

I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

What does that mean? No Middle Eastern oil at all? 75% of what we now use? 50%? 10%? What? There are going to be a lot of unhappy Arabs who will do everything they can to prevent that from happening. If poverty inspires terrorism, how will eliminating a major chunk of the oil money of Middle Eastern nations affect the potential for unrest and violence in the region?

But no more new oil wells - EVER! Actually I'm glad to see nuclear mentioned, but good luck getting that past the enviro-nuts.

I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars
of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for
the American people to afford these new cars.

Um ... so does this mean that government will take over the car industry? Does this mean that government will design the cars, pay auto manufacturers to build the cars, and then subsidize the cost of those cars to consumers? Sounds like a prescription for a nation driving the equivalent of Yugos and Trabants. No thanks.

I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable,
renewable sources of energy -- wind power and solar power and the next
generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries
and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

I guess it takes a lot of workers to scrape bird guts off those giant propellers. Seriously -- large-scale power generation via wind and solar systems has been the wet dream of bureaucrats for over thirty years, probably because they continually fantasize about drawing up the massive government regulations for those industries and imbuing them with a kind of progressive feel-good moral character that the eeeeevil "Big Oil" industry never possessed. But don't be fooled; wind and solar are still pipe dreams -- unreliable, grossly expensive -- and nobody wants the panels or windmills in their own back yard.

I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new
teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And
in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability.

We keep doing this stuff. We invest and invest and invest, to the point that some districts spend over $10,000 per child each year, and yet things don't seem to be getting any better. Sure, the government could set aside a massive chunk of money to subsidize teacher salaries, but how exactly can the government give teachers moral and emotional support? And if you think you're going to get the NEA to change criteria to make it easier to dismiss poor teachers, even those who sexually abuse students, then you've got another thing coming.

And we will keep our promise to every young American -- if you commit to
serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can
afford a college education.

We already do this; it's one of the evil ploys used to seduce poor, ignorant, innocent young men and women and turn them into cold-blooded killers in the US military, or so says the anti-war Left. Democrats, do you really want more of this? We already have Americorps, VISTA, the Peace Corps, etc. This is just a meaningless promise made for the benefit of those who don't know any better.

If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you
don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of
Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue
with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will
make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are
sick and need care the most.

Wow, that's a biggie. Is he going to subsidize insurance premiums, or enact a Federally-mandated set of price caps on medical procedures, to which all insurers and providers will be forced to to adhere? And how is forcing insurance companies to "stop discriminating" (in other words, pay every claim without question) going to lower premiums? I see private health care going only to the young and healthy, with everyone else being gradually squeezed out as "high risk," into a bloated, inefficient government supervised and subsidized program. When that happens, I doubt that John Q. Public be afforded the kind of first-class medical treatment that Ted Kennedy is receiving right now.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family
leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping
their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your
pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect
Social Security for future generations.

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an
equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same
opportunities as your sons.

Whew, another set of big promises and another set of vague platitudes.

I thought Bill Clinton fixed the family leave crisis.

How will Obama "protect Social Security?" After the stink that Democrats raised when President Bush wanted to place Social Security in the arena of the free market, we can be sure that there will be no private investment of Social Security monies and no attempt to make it into a true pension plan. Instead, there will be massive payroll tax increases; only on "the rich" for now, but once that precedent has been established, it will not be difficult to keep expanding taxes in the future.

And now "equal pay" again. Argh. We have equal pay laws out the wazoo already. And when you compare apples to apples -- young single men/women just out of college with identical degree/GPA applying for the same entry-level jobs -- pay scales are pretty much identical. There are dozens of different factors that go into setting employee salary levels (previous experience, married/single, number of children, single or double income in the household, career goals, better negotiating skills etc.) and we are never going to have perfect equality of outcome. Never. Even if we start with a level playing field, it will be pretty torn up at the end of the day.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but
I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a
sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and
the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

Yup, and I can't wait to see the first round of massive military budget cuts that a Democrat congress and a Democrat president will pass. And since Obama obviously wasn't paying attention five years ago, we did go into Iraq with a clear mission: to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power, and to establish a free government with democratically-elected officials, equal justice for all, and a free market economy. Overall, we have been enormously successful at achieving those goals. Speaking of "clear missions" (har!) get a load of this next promise:

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan ... When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I
argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against
the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we
must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in
our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the
Gates of Hell -- but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

Hoo-wee, I'd love to see Obama's "clear mission" for sending special forces carrying excessive firepower (perhaps tactical nukes) into disputed regions of Afghanistan, or across the border into Pakistan, a nation not only with nukes, but a government that is currently very unstable. Please, describe that "clear mission," including a complete set of contingencies for everything that might go wrong.

But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran
from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will
build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century:
terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate
change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that
America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to
the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a
better future.

Look, diplomacy is great, but what do you do when it doesn't work? Jimmy Carter couldn't come up with an answer that question, and it probably cost him the Presidency. And here, at last, is the great moral equivalency statement of tonight's speech. It seems that in Obama's view, the likes of Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc. won't work with us unless we cop to causing climate change, promoting poverty, and encouraging nuclear proliferation, and subsequently beg for their forgiveness. Again, we tried this approach to foreign policy 30 years ago and the results were disastrous. And ten years ago, Bill Clinton sent Al Gore to suck up to the international Convention on Climate Change, yet he sat by helplessly as the Kyoto Treaty was rejected resoundingly by the US Senate. It just doesn't seem like this is the direction that the majority of Americans want to take.

...

Well, there you have it: Barack Obama's vision for a better America. Next week we'll be able to compare it to the vision that John McCain outlines.

Our own Grandmother Superior appeared on Meet the Press this weekend, and was asked to respond to the Saddleback Forum question, "At what point does a baby get human rights?" You'll recall that Barack Obama punted, explaining that making such a determination was "above [his] pay grade."

Apparently such a determination was also above Grandmother Superior's pay grade (I'm actually thinking Peter Principle) considering the rambling, nonsensical answer she managed to produce, including this howler -- "The doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition." The doctors of the church?? WTF??? Yet her response can be accurately condensed to three words: "We don't know." That's Grandmother Superior speaking for herself primarily, and because of her political imminence, presumably the Roman Catholic Church as well.

First off, let me be clear about this. I think Pelosi was being honest. In her post modern, progressive worldview, we don't know. We can't know, because we are incapable of inerrantly judging any situation to be "good" or "evil." Such is the heart of contemporary post-modern philosophy -- there can never be certainty about anything, save for the fact that nothing is ever certain. But such uncertainty cannot be projected upon the Roman Catholic church, which remains a most profoundly un-post modern institution.

In response to Madame Speaker's hazy recollection of Roman Catholic church history, "Captain Ed" Morrisey posted a nice compendium of ancient Church teachings on abortion, which succinctly illustrates that the early church fathers were in unity with regard to the sinfulness of abortion. Even though Protestants have grown rather squishy on the issue, nothing has changed during the last 2000 years with respect to Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox doctrine. Nothing.

Yet Pelosi can't -- or won't -- recognize this because, as a progressive, her primary agenda is saving the world (a job that the rest of us usually trust God to accomplish). And for over 100 years, the doctrines of progressivism have taught that the unfettered
practice of abortion will be able to accomplish what the doctrines of
the Church seemingly have not -- the elimination poverty and the restoration of humanity to a proverbial "Garden of Eden" state of health and prosperity. Thus to progressives the practice of abortion has become an ultimate expression of morality not to be hampered by such trivialities as "human rights" for a fetus, and in challenging this viewpoint, the Church is simply ignorant.

I believe that this episode perfectly illustrates the necessity of the concept of separation of church and state. We usually study this issue from the viewpoint of organized religion attempting to coerce government, but Pelosi's remarks should remind us that dimwitted, morally wobbly politicians can also pose a threat to the free expression of orthodox religious thought if they are given too much power. Ask a Canadian Catholic if you don't believe me.

If Nancy Pelosi believes that moral absolutes do not exist, or that she is better equipped to define morality than the Church, that's fine, and she should have the freedom to publicly joust with her mythical "doctors of the church" as often and as vigorously as she wishes. But those of us who simply think she is a fool should always have the right to challenge her foolishness without fear of recrimination. In a free society, that's the way it should be.

Here's a great example of the kind of eye-rolling stupidity we are forced to endure during Presidential campaigns.

The press, still smarting from The Chosen One's crummy performance at last week's Saddleback Forum tried to trip up John McCain (and insinuate that he is an "elitist," whatever that means) by asking him how many houses he and his wife own. McCain didn't know, and said that he'd have to check out the answer.

For the informationally challenged, here is a little background. Cindy McCain (née Hensley) is the daughter of James Hensley, who owned and operated one of the largest Anheuser-Busch distributorships in the United States. When John McCain married Cindy in 1980, they signed a prenuptial agreement, whereby she retained control of her family's assets. When her father died in 2000, Cindy became chair of Hensley & Co, which is currently valued at around $300 million; before that time, she was not involved directly with the family business. Because of their prenup, John McCain doesn't manage her money or her investments. And it's pretty obvious to me that these homes are investments, not residences.

Naturally, John McCain doesn't know all the details of his wife's business.

Now if you want to make a big deal out of this, here are fair questions to ask, if you want to compare McCain and Obama on this issue:

2. Since these homes are investments and not residences, maybe we should ask Obama about his investments. Could he lay out his and Michelle's entire portfolios from memory for us? Could he tell us, without review, what all of the sources of income on his and Michelle's 2007 income tax returns were? I doubt it; I also doubt that anyone in the press would ever ask this of him.

Now, how many of you "average" people out there had a shady real estate developer join you in the purchase of your homestead and its surrounding property? How many of you have so many sources of income that you probably couldn't name them all off the top of your head? Is Barack Obama really "one of you?" Is anyone, once they reach the level of Presidential contender? By the way, the closer you inspect the Obama money trail, the dirtier it looks.

Further, how many homes do John Kerry and Tereza Heinz (Kerry?) own? And isn't it interesting that no one asked John Kerry how many homes he owned during the 2004 campaign?

For that matter, how many homes does the Kennedy family own? Or the Rockefellers?

And for those of you who keep missing the irony, here it is. You see, Republicans are supposed to be rich, evil snob bastards. But Democrats, well they are the friends of the downtrodden, the advocates of the poor, the protectors of starving children, etc. They eat, sleep, and drink the plight of those mired in poverty. Yet four years ago, the Democrats nominated a haughty, arrogant playboy married to a gazillion-heiress, who then chose a sleazy millionaire trial lawyer as his running mate.

Denver has a good public transportation system, so what is the problem? I suppose that some Democrats are just too special to soil themselves sitting on dirty public bus seats. Or maybe Denver doesn't keep its buses cooled to 65 degrees in the summer. Oh, the humanity.

The DNC is also expecting kooks to turn out in record numbers this year, so they had the city convert an old warehouse into a special secret holding facility for protesters who are arrested. Big Dog writes,

So let’s get this straight. The same Democratic party that howls about
Guantanamo Bay and secret CIA prisons in other countries knew about a
secret prison right here in America built for their convenience. Some
might call that a bit hypocritical. Others, like me, might ask why it
is that the Democrats oppose prisons (secret or not) that house
terrorists and other enemies of our country but are in favor of a
secret prison to house people who show opposition to the Democrats?

Indeed.

...

The Chinese are concerned about the number of empty seats at the Olympics. After all, they gave the citizens of Beijing special passes to the events and extra days off. But common sense tells me that the Chinese have better things to do than waste their time supporting what is becoming nothing more than a huge symbol of the ultimate deception of Communism. A government that goes all-out to impress the international community, yet treats their own citizens like dirt, will garner very little widespread support.

Kristy Grant, the Volusia County, FL, "cat lady" has won her fight to keep 150 cats on her multi-acre cat sanctuary.

...

Legendary record producer Jerry Wexler has died at the age of 91. Wexler turned Atlantic Records from a struggling indie label into the nation's R&B powerhouse through the recordings he produced for Ruth Brown, Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, and many others.

...

Here is a lengthy story about Pottsville, IA, home of Agriprocessors, which was raided by ICE back in May. The town, which was home to hundreds of immigrants from Mexico and South America who worked at the plant, has been devastated. I always find it difficult to read the stories of those who willfully endure suffering just so their children can have a chance at a better future in America. And I am angered by those who have no problem inflicting that suffering just so they can make a bigger buck.

...

If you think that "alternative energy" is somehow morally superior to fossil fuels, then you should read this NT Times story. It seems as though "Big Wind" is just as corrupt as "Big Oil."

...

Rasmussen is reporting that 55% of those it surveyed believe that media bias is more of a problem than out-of-control campaign contributions. Could the recent -- and glaringly obvious -- press cover-up of the John Edwards affair have affected this opinion poll? Politicians have exhausted a lot of wind over the subject of campaign finance reform over the years, but curiously they seem reluctant to talk about bias in the press. Here's a place for them to start: The Washington Post just admitted that its stories on Barack Obama outnumbered its stories about John McCain by 3:1.

...

The National Review's Stanley Kurtz has been investigating the relationship between Barack Obama and former Weather Underground terrorist turned academic icon Bill Ayers. Kurtz reports that the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago houses some 130 boxes of records that could prove very enlightening, but the University has been stifling his attempts to view the contents of those boxes. Silly me -- I thought liberals were always opposed to any efforts aimed at keeping materials away from library patrons.

...

I'm not a believer in the idea of the world "ending" via an unimaginable apocalyptic disaster. If you share my skepticism of "Left Behind" and other doomsday scenarios, you might enjoy this episode of Penn and Teller's Showtime series "Bullshit!" (language warning, for those of you who haven't figured that out yet).

I don't have much to say about John Edwards' extramarital affair except that it proves that John Edwards' devotion to his family is just as phony as his devotion to the poor; specifically, Edwards is devoted to things other than himself only when those things will benefit him financially or politically.

Well, actually I have one more point to make -- just how deeply were Edwards' staff, the Democratic party, and the mainstream media involved in covering up the affair? The story didn't stay out of the press just because a teary-eyed Edwards shamelessly played the cancer card in order to suppress the story. We know that the Los Angeles Times actually told their bloggers not to write about the story. We also know that the New York Times wouldn't touch the Edwards story, even though they had no problem publishing a story about John McCain and a female staffer that was based solely on rumor and unsubstantiated claims.

There is a lot more to this story, and plenty of big names still think that Edwards is lying about ending the relationship two years ago. The best mainstream blogger covering the story is Mickey Kaus. If you want a lot more snark, check out Deceiver.com.

According to Ben Smith at The Politico, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted describing Barack Obama as "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

Cue halo. Cue the Hallelujah Chorus. And they say that conservatives are making all this "messiah" stuff up just so they can portray Obama as "The Antichrist"? Spare me.

Now, if a prominent Religious Right figure like James Dobson were to make that statement about John McCain, liberals would go absolutely apeshit. But I suppose that Grandmother Superior is exonerated because she is a Democrat.

I hope that everyone either watched or read the live blogs or the transcript of Saturday night's forum at Saddleback church.

Despite the "wake me up when its over" groans from most conservative commentators -- who expected an anti-climactic event prodded along by softball questions -- the forum was absolutely fantastic.

As Ann Althouse pointed out, Rick Warren was excellent. His questions were interesting, informative, and far different than what the media would throw at the candidates during a debate.

The one-candidate-at-a-time format also gave us an opportunity to see each candidate just about as honestly as we could have through the medium of television. And the differences between the two men were striking.

Today, Rush Limbaugh said, "This two hours was worth more than any
presidential debate I have ever seen. "

Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is to look at how both men answered this question: "Does evil exist and if so, should we ignore it, negotiate with it, contain it, or defeat it?"

EVIL DOES EXIST. I MEAN, WE SEE EVIL ALL THE TIME. WE SEE EVIL IN DARFUR. WE SEE EVIL SADLY ON THE STREETS OF OUR CITIES. WE SEE EVIL IN PARENTS WHO HAVE VICIOUSLY ABUSED THEIR CHILDREN AND I THINK IT HAS TO BE CONFRONTED. IT HAS TO BE CONFRONTED SQUARELY AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I STRONGLY BELIEVE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT GOING TO, AS INDIVIDUALS, BE ABLE TO ERASE EVIL FROM THE WORLD. THAT IS GOD'S TASK. BUT WE CAN BE SOLDERS IN THAT PROCESS AND WE CAN CONFRONT IT WHEN WE SEE IT.

NOW, THE ONE THING THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT IS FOR US TO HAVE SOME HUMILITY IN HOW WE APPROACH THE ISSUE OF CON FRONTING EVIL, BUT YOU KNOW A LOT OF EVIL HAS BEEN PERPETRATED BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT WE WERE TRYING TO CONFRONT EVIL.

(Warren) IN THE NAME OF GOOD?

IN THE NAME OF GOOD. AND I THINK ONE THING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT IS HAVING SOME HUMILITY IN RECOGNIZING THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE WE THINK OUR INTENTIONS ARE GOOD DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING GOOD.

The question again: "Does evil exist and if so, should we ignore it, negotiate with it, contain it, or defeat it?"

COUPLE POINTS, ONE, IF I'M PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MY FRIENDS, IF I HAVE TO FOLLOW HIM TO THE GATES OF HELL, I WILL GET OSAMA BIN LADEN AND BRING HIM TO JUSTICE. I WILL DO THAT AND I KNOW HOW TO DO THAT. I WILL GET THAT DONE. NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TAKE THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN -- INNOCENT AMERICAN LIVES. OF COURSE EVIL MUST BE DEFEATED. MY FRIENDS, WE ARE FACING THE TRANSCENDENT CHALLENGE OF THE 21-CENTURY, RADICAL ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS.

NOT LONG AGO IN BAGHDAD, AL-QAEDA TOOK TWO YOUNG WOMEN WHO WERE MENTALLY DISABLED AND PUT SUICIDE VESTS ON THEM, SENT THEM INTO A MARKETPLACE AND BY REMOTE CONTROL, DETONATED THOSE SUICIDE VESTS. IF THAT ISN'T EVIL, YOU HAVE TO TELL ME WHAT IS, AND WE'RE GOING TO DEFEAT THIS EVIL AND THE CENTRAL BATTLE GROUND ACCORDING TO DAVID PETRAEUS AND OSAMA BIN LADEN IS THE BATTLES -- IS BAGHDAD, MOSUL AND IRAQ AND WE ARE WINNING AND WE ARE SUCCEEDING AND OUR TROOPS WILL COME HOME WITH HONOR AND VICTORY AND NOT IN DEFEAT AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.

WE HAVE -- AND WE FACE THIS THREAT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. IT'S NOT JUST IN IRAQ. IT'S NOT JUST IN AFGHANISTAN. OUR INTELLIGENCE PEOPLE TELL US AL-QAEDA CONTINUES TO TRY TO ESTABLISH CELLS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. MY FRIENDS, WE MUST FACE THIS CHALLENGE. WE CAN FACE THIS CHALLENGE AND WE MUST TOTALLY DEFEAT IT AND WE'RE IN A LONG STRUGGLE, BUT WHEN I'M AROUND THE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE SERVING THIS NATION IN UNIFORM, I HAVE NO DOUBT, NONE.

So here's what we have. Warren asks if evil should be ignored, treated diplomatically, contained, or defeated. After attempting to make a checklist of everyday evils that each of us have seen, Obama responded that evil must be confronted, but that we should take care so that we do not commit different evils in the name of defeating a specific evil. McCain responded succinctly that we must defeat evil. He also specifically tagged what he believes to be the main source of evil facing America -- "radical Islamic extremists." He places his trust in the men and women of the armed forces and believes that we can defeat Al Qaeda and the forces of Islamofascism.

There are probably a lot of different ways to analyze these answers, but I am going to frame these answers in the context of modernism (the philosophy of most Americans born before 1950) and post-modernism (the philosophy embraced by members of the "baby boomer" generation and taught by them to those of us born roughly after 1970).

The modernist philosophy, which dominated the thinking of the WWII generation and those slightly younger, taught that it was possible to define absolute evil. It also taught that evil should be confronted and eradicated by whatever means were necessary, including the use of deadly force. I like to think of Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" Callahan as a good example of a modernist.

On the other hand, post-moderns came of age intellectually after WWII, and attempted to answer the most difficult question surrounding the European theater of the war -- how could a civilized, scientifically-advanced, Christian nation like Germany allow the Nazis to assume power and then commit atrocities like the Holocaust, all seemingly with the cooperation of the majority of the German people?

The answers that European post-modernists developed centered around the philosophical nature of Western thought after the Age of Enlightenment. Specifically, the post-moderns argued that the combination of philosophy and scientific methods developed during this time led to a belief that absolute truth and moral infallibility could be obtained through logical thinking. Thus, even though Europeans committed numerous atrocities through the slave trade and through the brutal subjugation of native peoples by forced colonization, they had convinced themselves that everything they had done was moral and congruent with the will of God. Therefore, previous generations were capable of committing evil without being able to clearly recognize it, because they had convinced themselves that only "others" were capable of evil.

The dominant post-modern philosophy that emerged during the 1960's said, in effect, "question everything" --specifically, don't trust the US government (or "big business", or any other "establishment" power structure dominated by wealthy Anglo males) when they claim that they are a force of good fighting the forces of evil. Through his Ivy League education and training in the community organizing methods of Saul Alinsky, Barack Obama was taught this worldview.

On the other hand, John McCain believes that it is possible to absolutely define sources of evil in the world. He also believes that it is the duty of good people to eliminate evil. And even though localized acts of evil by Americans have occurred during the War on Terror, the supreme goal of the war is just, and therefore it is unthinkable to compare America to al-Qaeda, whose supreme goal is ultimately evil.

Finally, there is the question of imagination with respect to both candidates. As a community activist, Barack Obama articulates a prophetic vision of a brighter tomorrow, and under his Presidential leadership he sees Americans representing all philosophical viewpoints coming together in blue ribbon panels, leadership conferences, summit meetings, etc. He seems to believe that his primary role as Chief Executive is to steer these groups toward a consensus by emphasizing common goals, thus creating the most promising set of domestic and foreign policies ever enacted by the United States government. On the other hand, the military trained John McCain to expect the unexpected, and to be ready to handle crisis situations with finely-honed pragmatic decision making skills based on a clear and consistent understanding of good and evil. McCain had to use those skills when, within the span of only a few moments, he went from being a Naval aviator to being a prisoner of the Vietcong. He also knows that within the span of a few moments on Sept. 11, 2001, the United States was transformed from a nation at peace into a nation at war. Those are the kind of scenarios that John McCain has prepared himself for, if he is to be elected President of the United States.

So there we have it -- two radically different candidates for President of the United States. The differences between both men are extremely clear. Which ever candidate's philosophy most closely matches yours should be what determines your vote in November.